Abstract
In a plural and secular society, bioethics may be related to basic human rights that, in all modern and civilized societies, evolved to the point of giving an almost unlimited respect to the human being. This idea is clearly expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a statement that is crucial in all ethical reflection on medicine. It is generally accepted, at least in societies influenced by modern culture, that some basic rights are inherent to all human individuals, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, and political or religious convictions. And medical ethics could not escape this influence of bioethics: the right of every citizen to his or her freedom of self-determination. The Nuremberg Code, in particular, refers to this issue concerning the ethical imperative of obtaining informed consent. Thus, there was no need to create a new medical ethics but reformulate it in the light of new paradigms.
Bioethics then settled as a new global field, although of multi- and transdisciplinary nature. Global bioethics means not only the adoption of a unique universal ethics but also the inclusion of all matters that relate to the life sciences. In a broad sense, to this concept is also associated an essential dimension of the practice of medicine and biomedicine that is a set of duties inherent in any healthcare profession.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
CIOMS. (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Prepared by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). Geneva: CIOMS.
Council of Europe. (1996). Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Engelhardt, H. T. (1996). The foundations of bioethics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Feinberg, J. (1980). The child’s right to an open future. In W. Aiken & H. LaFollette (Eds.), Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority and state power (pp. 124–153). Totowa: Littlefield, Adams.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Nunes, R., & Rego, G. (2014). Priority setting in health care: A complementary approach. Health Care Analysis, 22, 292–303.
Potter, V. (1970). Bioethics, the science of survival (pp. 127–153). Autumn: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. New York: Harvard University Press.
Reich, W. T. (1999). Encyclopedia of bioethics. London: Simon & Schuster/Prentice Hall International.
Further Readings
British Medical Association. (2007). Medical ethics today. Its practice and philosophy (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Publishing Group.
Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. (2002). Setting limits fairly. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jonsen, A. (2000). A short history of medical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Nunes, R. (2014). Bioethics: Medical. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_44-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_44-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities